You are one hell of a waste of space if you don't believe evolution is true. It's like denying the holocaust. Also evolution is fact AND theory, the same way that gravity is fact and theory. We know that gravity exists/we know that evolution exists. If newtons laws were proven wrong, gravity would not stop/If Darwin was wrong, evolution would not stop. Gravity and evolution are facts in that they exist. The theory is how they work and how they came to be.

Over 99.9% of the scientific community views evolution as fact. Below is a little argument I wrote up a year ago or so, so far no ones been able to properly counter it. But someone on here probably will.

For something to be created, it must have a parent. This is irrefutable unless you believe in magic. Explain how the human race was created (or any other race for that matter) without a parent. It MUST have evolved from a simpler organism. Now to counter my argument you will probably ask me how this simpler organism was created without a parent? Well to answer that, well no one can answer that, yet. But there is a whole field of study dedicated to it. Look up Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how nucleic acids came to be. Here is where the evolutionary argument is stronger than the creationist argument. If we can discover ONE SINGLE fact, the fact of how nucleic acids came to be, then we can say that all other life forms evolved from these nucleic acids. But how do many organisms evolve from 1 acid. Well nucleic acids are created from proteins which are created from amino acids. These amino acids created (under different conditions) different proteins which created different nucleic acids. Creationists have to say that all living things came to be. They did not evolve from each-other and they all were created without any evolution at all. Thus they have to say that millions of different species were created and they have to prove this. The evolutionists only have to say that ONE organism was formed and the rest evolved from it. Now this argument is based on evolution being true. But if you look at fossil evidence then you can almost certainly determine that evolution is a FACT. You do not need carbon dating to do this, as some skeptics say that carbon dating is inaccurate. You can take fossils from different rock layers (such as the grand canyon) and can determine the approximate age of it. By doing so you can order the fossils from old to new, and you can see step by step how the organisms evolved. But still, carbon dating is a STRONG tool to show how old fossils are.

BTW: Those who say evolution is a mathematical impossibility: I just give them this. 1/3=.333 3x1/3=3x.333 1=.999 . This means that all systems have flaws, but that does not mean that the entire system is flawed either. This is also a good analogy for the people who think that carbon dating is inaccurate.

Now, since there is overwhelming evidence of Evolution, and practically no scientist opposes it, and *laughs* Absolutely none for your creationism myth, we must go with the one with the most evidence to support it, none to contradict it, and practically no scientists to go against it.

Of course, that's logically, but since you reject evolution I don't expect you to think logically.

Fine. You must be blind, but fine. Then I refer you to a page of links I compiled using the very most basic search techniques including google and Ask.com. Take a look-see.http://my.sitemark.com/skate6566/tilesDon't worry, the /tiles just shows the pictures of the sites smaller so you can fit them all on one page.

As I have told you elsewhere, the only people who use the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are creationists. To scientists, it is all "evolution". You accept that Skate's references prove "microevolution" to your satisfaction, ergo, you accept evolution as fact. Congratulations.

pk kiteman dgm aa xacidityx not to be rude but will you guys SHUT UP kiteman aa xacidityx just say you rebel against religion dgm just say you rebel against evolution.I would invite you all to prayerfully study the king james version of the bible.

Are you saying that I am wrong? Are you claiming to be old? Wise? Brave? Is it brave to delete posts and threads when you start to lose a debate? Or do you just find it insulting to have the obvious pointed out to you?

No, he has read the Bible, and listened to stories from pulpits (he was curious about church, so I took him), and decided that they don't make sense. As for fossils, yes, he has books about them, but he has held them in his hand himself. He has dug them out of the ground himself. You see, he has a mind of his own, and isn't afraid to think for himself.

Yeah, gullible, like how you came to believe Christianity?Golly gee, there's a god who loves me? I want someone to love me! I'm afraid to die... but when I die I go to heaven where everything is great!

If Darth Gecko Man was being honest, then he would admit that he had taken the opportunity to delete points to which he had no valid response. That's why he deleted the whole "Creationism vs Evolution" thread as well. He'd rather run and hide than admit he is wrong.

I cannot respect is the way you have been trying to "debate away" evolution when you have admitted that you will not believe it because you do do not understand it, and you are scared that it might be true.

I cannot respect the way you delete comments that are direct replies to your comments.

Feel free to try and convince me I am wrong, but you must research evolution properly (not from creationist websites) to try and find the mistakes in it, and if you want to convince me that there is a god, then you are going to have to come up with some actual evidence.

Where? You, having admitted that you do not understand evolution, tried to prove that it is wrong. How can you be surprised when you get shot down in flames? It's like trying to enter the Indie 500 the day after you master the ignition key.

oh, oops, i used the wrong word...i meant, unlike dgm, i believed in god for a reason other than being afraid of hell...as in, i actually believe in god instead of trying to trick myself into believing it...

oh whatever, sorry for the confusion...

oh yeah, and i'm not sure if that's a trick question but i believe it's 2

Oh, it is to laugh - I got most of it emailed to me by the site, even though you deleted it as soon as you started looking stupid.

I mean...

did you know that there are giant closed clams on the top of the Himalayasthere is a city in France named after the dragon that stood beside itthere is no evidence of civilization before 400 BCCarbon dating has been proved false.

You just don't get it, do you? DIRT MOVES! All that shows is that the top of the Himalayas was covered with water at one time. Totally irrelevant to Evolution.

but they are closed, clams open when they die. i believe that the dragons were actually dinosaurs that were on the ark. but were hunted to extinction by humans

Call it an insult if you want, but I still consider it cowardly to delete posts just because you are losing the debate and making yourself look silly. It proves you do not have the courage of your convictions, and have very little faith in the power of your arguments.